Sarasota Network for Climate Action is on Facebook

Are you on Facebook? Or looking for a reason to be? Sarasota Network for Climate Action (SNCA) is now on Facebook. Keep up with the latest events happening on the climate and interact with other members who want to keep their finger on the pulse of our environment.

Facebook: SNCA

This Saturday on Siesta Key Beach, FL - Promote the importance of clean energy solutions

The Sarasota Network for Climate Action asks you to come out to Siesta Key Beach this Saturday, Sept 26th to hand out literature and gather petition signatures in support of the clean energy plan that's currently being considered in Congress.

Here's a great chance for you to help promote the importance of clean energy solutions for Florida's wildlife and natural resources. There will be canvassers at beaches all along Florida organized by the Florida Clean Energy Works coalition.

There are two 2-hour shifts available: 10am and 1pm. So if you've got two hours to help advocate clean energy solutions this Saturday, please come to 437 Island Circle Drive, Siesta Key, to get training and materials. Lunch will be provided there for all volunteers. Sign up for a shift at

http://www.repoweramerica.org/page/event/detail/4jvld The 10am canvass

http://www.repoweramerica.org/page/event/detail/4jvl2 The 1pm canvass

(This will also give you a map to get to Island Circle Drive.)

Questions? Contact Tara Bess 772.696.2981 or tara.bess@climateproject.org.

Taking control of your energy bill with the help of the Public Service Commission

My article is reprinted from Creative Loafing.

It has been long understood that the best way to combat climate change and reduce CO2 emissions is to become a more efficient community with our energy use. Average Americans have the ability to take action by creating an environment in their home that will use the least amount of energy in order to create a comfortable setting. And business owners have the same opportunity through the buildings that house their businesses.

Not only can we reduce the CO2 emissions that we put into the atmosphere, we can also help our monthly expenses when it comes to paying for the electricity that we purchase from our utility company. But when we decide to do this, where do we turn for help?

The utilities are truly the best people to evaluate your efficiency because they are the most familiar with how you use your electricity. They essentially have the inside scoop on what makes you happy in your home and office. But if your utility is an Investor Owned Utility (IOU), the problem is also just as plain as the answers on a cheat sheet. It is in their best interest not to be too efficient with their evaluation because they, like many other businesses, have a profit margin figured into their business plan. Promoting energy efficiency encourages you, their customers, to use less energy. With less electricity being purchased, their profit margin will also decrease.

That is why our legislature passed the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA). It mandates the Public Service Commission (PSC) to hold hearings to develop meaningful energy efficiency goals to be put in place over the next 10 years. FEECA utilities include both IOUs and municipal owned utilities. The IOUs are: FPL, PEF, TECO, Gulf, FPUC; and the Municipals are: JEA and OUC.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) are advocating for the target level of 1 percent of energy efficiency to be reached by the utility companies annually. They, along with the PSC’s own expert who has agreed on this percentage level, are standing up to what the utilities are calling a “radical” proposal.

What the utilities have recommended is very different. JEA and OUC have proposed “zero” as their 10-year goal and the other IOUs recommend a variety of goals — with the highest coming in at 1.7 percent over 10 years.

Based on the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Florida’s largest utilities have been reporting an insignificant amount of .2-percent energy savings per year. Leading utilities in other states are capturing significantly more — five times more in some states. In fact, there are 17 states right now that require their utility companies to reach at least a 1-percent efficiency savings goal every year. Why is Florida so different?

To understand it better, you have to know that the goals have been kept low by the use of the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) cost-effectiveness test. This test includes the utility’s lost revenue from the use of an efficiency measure and takes it into consideration when it determines its recommendations. Even if there is a small rate impact, such as 1 percent over a 20-year period, it will screen out that measure from further consideration. Critics say that this test does not take into consideration that the increase will be outdone by the customer’s bill reductions through lower usage. They say Florida is the only state in the nation that uses this antiquated test to exclusively set goals.

Another way valuable efficiency measures are screened out is by the use of 2-year payback scheme. If measures provide a customer payback of 2 years or less, they don’t make the final cut. That seems to make sense except that many of these measures aren’t being widely adopted by customers and could benefit from utility promotion.

The utility companies are already granted a rate of return on the value of power plants. They continue to advocate for the construction of costly power plants. Without meaningful efficiency, Florida customers will be ensnared in a trap of fuel spikes and soaring power plant construction costs. What the utilities have recommended is a very small pool of efficiency measures that do not significantly reduce the use of electricity.

This October, the PSC staff will issue a recommendation to the PSC commissioners. The commissioners will then issue a final order by the end of October on the proposed efficiency goals. This will be the last time the PSC considers efficiency over the next five years. You should contact the PSC and let them know how you feel.

We, as consumers, have little control over the rates that we are charged for our electricity. However, we do have control over how much electricity we use. And if you have been following the news over the summer, you will know that two of the large utilities in Florida have asked for a rate increase — FPL (30 percent) and PEF (31 percent). At a time when we are all feeling a pinch by our wallets, it is important to let the PSC know that we expect them to put our best interest first.

To have your opinions be heard, you can contact Nancy Argenziano at her email or call her at 850-413-6038 or any other commissioners at the PSC. Your comments are being posted to the docket for consideration.

Creative Loafing

BP discovers oil field in Gulf of Mexico

This article is reproduced from my blog. Image © BP p.l.c.

'BP said the discovery, amounting to more than three billion barrels, would "support the continuing growth of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico business into the second half of the next decade".'  (BBC News)

I think we can agree that three billion barrels of oil appears to be a fairly large amount.  On one hand we are told that oil is in decline, but then we discover more oil fields and the world continues to turn.

But by how much do finds like these really delay the ultimate depletion of oil?  How long will the three billion barrels last?

There are a couple of ways of doing this calculation.  First is the gross simplification: divide the amount of oil discovered by the amount of oil consumed globally.

According to BP figures, the world used about 85 million barrels per day in 2008.  If we assume BP can recover all 3 billion barrels from Tiber (the new oil field discovered), then it would last the world about 35 days.

The BBC article quotes a BP spokesperson, saying that "... only as much as 30% is extracted from the ground in practice".  Given that, the number of days' supply falls to about 11.

That is a fairly poor estimate, though, as it does not take into account the fact that oil production from a new well follows a normal distribution (a bell curve).  Production increases as infrastructure and access to the well improves, then peaks, and as the well is a finite resource, starts to decline again.  This is also known as a Hubbert Peak.

A better way to consider the impact of this new well is to add its bell curve to the bell curves of all the other oil fields globally.  The largest oil field is called Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, producing about 5 million barrels per day and estimated total reserves of 75-83 billion barrels.

Ghawar is but one of the giant fields, others include Burgan, Safaniya and Samotlor, all significantly larger than young Tiber.  There are also thousands of smaller ones.

Imagine all these bell curves overlapping one another, adding up to make one very large one (with a definite peak).  What is the effect of adding a new discovery like Tiber to it? 

The problem is that adding one bell curve to many does not change the average of them by very much at all.  In fact, given the relative size of this new field compared with the total, I cannot imagine the peak of the total bell curve shifting by more than a couple of days, if that.

Unfortunately an actual number is beyond my resources to find - I'm sure there are hundreds of highly paid analysts working for BP and others trying to find exactly the same thing.

The point is that, though new oil discoveries do happen, they are simply not of the scale or number needed to push the "end of oil" back very far at all.  The chances of finding another super-giant like Ghawar are slim now, and searching in harder to reach places (Tiber is the deepest known field, at about 10km deep) increases cost.

I fear that hoping that new discoveries will continue to allow our current oil consumption is folly of the highest order.  Most oil fields are now in decline and, though this is contested, it would appear that oil has most definitely "peaked".

Time for something new.  Gas, nuclear, or renewables?  Or, in fact, all three, as well as recovering oil from less conventional sources like oil sands/shale.

---

Sources Used

BBC news story
BP oil usage statistics (BP)
Hubbert Peak Theory (Wikipedia)
Ghawar reserves statistics (foreignpolicy.com)
List of oil fields over 1 billion barrels (Wikipedia)

"Ministers predict energy shortage within eight years" [UK]

(This article reproduced from my blog)

The title of this post is the tagline of a news story on the front page of The Daily Telegraph, September 1st 2009. The article can be read in its entirety here.

To summarise: as energy reserves run low and demand increases, there is a predicted shortfall of 3000 megawatt hours in 2017 and 7000 megawatt hours in 2025. The paper tell us that this second number is "equivalent to an hour long blackout for half of Britain over the course of a year".

This is not a lot and if they were to do this when I am asleep each night I would not notice. However, it shows that as time goes on we can expect our energy situation to get worse and worse. An hour can quickly become a day, and energy demand will almost certainly rise more than predicted.

In fact, the paper cites Greg Clark, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, stating (the article) that "some of the modelling used was 'optimistic' because it assumes little or no change in electricity demand up until 2020." Oh dear. We can safely assume that the predicted shortfall is an underestimate, and probably a gross one at that.

Why is this happening? Several coal and oil power plants are being closed due to environmental concerns, existing nuclear power plants are being decommissioned, and investment into renewable energy is not sufficient.

The solution seems obvious: create rapid investment into renewables and nuclear power. Extend the lifetimes of existing nuclear plants and build more as a matter of utmost haste (and continue research into carbon sequestration and storage just in case we still have to burn coal.)

Well, there are the problems. Renewables are not developed enough to provide such a proportion of the energy supply, and their intermittent nature would require the creation of a large scale national energy storage system. Not only is this technologically beyond our means (on such a scale), but it would be novel and hence extremely expensive. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build, are expensive, and given the privately owned (foreign) utilities companies' distaste for risk, it seems there will be no new nuclear power plants for decades.

We can see this shortfall coming, but we are like an enormous supertanker heading for an iceberg, unable to slow down or change direction quickly. We see it coming but it seems we can do nothing to prevent our demise. It would be almost comical if it were satire.

What is the answer, then? Government has known about this for a while, but it has been largely ignored, or if not ignored, then not taken seriously enough for any real solution to be present now.

Should we nationalise energy again? The only real way of ensuring safety and speed of nuclear and renewable builds would be a concerted effort from a single body, rather than contracts being won by the highest bidder, and work done as cheaply as possible. Nuclear power is safe if done properly; deadly if not. Is the government that bothered? Would it be up to the task if it were?

Rapid investment and building of nuclear or renewable sources seems unlikely. Coal and nuclear are protested against by environmental activists. Renewables are protested against by residents and other environmental activists.

Gas seems to be our only option, being much cleaner than coal. But as North Sea reserves dwindle, more of this will be coming from Russia. This would be widely regarded as a Bad Thing, given Russia's history of cutting supplies to countries to enforce a position of power. Not only that, but reliance on a single energy source, like gas, increases the risk of something going wrong or costs skyrocketting, considering the volatile nature of gas prices.

Better stock up on candles, then.